sounds like aside the cost, this was a great project, you get to keep a highway and have an ugly one removed and allow access to the waterfront. If tunnels weren't so expensive, this would happen in many downtowns.

It really doesn't replace the bulk of the viaduct's traffic (due to the lack of downtown ramps) and really wasn't worth the headache. The Surface + Transit option from the 2000s would have been much better, and we're essentially building it on top of the tunnel anyway (but at a higher cost and much later).

Fingers crossed that a major earthquake (either from the subduction zone or local fault) doesn't strike the viaduct before it's fully demolished. It wouldn't take down the whole waterfront, thanks to the new seawall, but it would still do a lot of damage.

sounds like aside the cost, this was a great project, you get to keep a highway and have an ugly one removed and allow access to the waterfront. If tunnels weren't so expensive, this would happen in many downtowns.

It really doesn't replace the bulk of the viaduct's traffic (due to the lack of downtown ramps) and really wasn't worth the headache. The Surface + Transit option from the 2000s would have been much better, and we're essentially building it on top of the tunnel anyway (but at a higher cost and much later).

Fingers crossed that a major earthquake (either from the subduction zone or local fault) doesn't strike the viaduct before it's fully demolished. It wouldn't take down the whole waterfront, thanks to the new seawall, but it would still do a lot of damage.

On the plus side, although it would kill many dozens of people, it would at least prove to the non-believers the viability of a tunnel through fill, and its ability to not only stand up in an earthquake, but also be one of the safest places.

The tunnel was far too deep for any downtown exits to be practical. Plus, the new tunnel includes far better access to Alaskan Way than the current Viaduct. Alaskan Way will basically be the new downtown connector.

The surface+transit option would've been good, but since 99 is used as a bypass of I-5 occasionally, this tunnel was needed for that traffic.

Highway 99 isn't typically used as a bypass for through-traffic, due to the time-consuming east-west connections at the north end to Aurora Avenue. It is useful to the south end, but that was mostly a side-benefit of having a few (but not too many) downtown exits.

The surface+transit option would've been good, but since 99 is used as a bypass of I-5 occasionally, this tunnel was needed for that traffic.

Highway 99 isn't typically used as a bypass for through-traffic, due to the time-consuming east-west connections at the north end to Aurora Avenue. It is useful to the south end, but that was mostly a side-benefit of having a few (but not too many) downtown exits.

There are no direct east-west routes from Aurora to the 5, but there are plenty of good-enough options for it to still be a feasible route to bypass Seattle to the West. I have used Aurora to bypass the city coming from the north, even though Waze was suggesting I stay on 5. Probably saved about 15 minutes?

I doubt the Port of Seattle would have supported the surface-only option anyways, and I seem to recall them having contributed to funding.

The surface+transit option would've been good, but since 99 is used as a bypass of I-5 occasionally, this tunnel was needed for that traffic.

Highway 99 isn't typically used as a bypass for through-traffic, due to the time-consuming east-west connections at the north end to Aurora Avenue. It is useful to the south end, but that was mostly a side-benefit of having a few (but not too many) downtown exits.

The east-west connections at the north end to Aurora Avenue aren't really time consuming, considering that Aurora Avenue is only a mile west of I-5. I often take 99 into Downtown Seattle in the afternoons, just like Jakeroot does. I don't care if it actually saves me time as long as I'm moving faster than 5 miles per hour. I do have a car with a stick shift, so I'd much prefer not to be sitting in stop-and-go traffic.

Regardless, I'm glad they built the tunnel. Having only one high-capacity route through downtown Seattle would have been a disaster waiting to happen if they were stupid enough to do only the surface street.

Regardless, I'm glad they built the tunnel. Having only one high-capacity route through downtown Seattle would have been a disaster waiting to happen if they were stupid enough to do only the surface street.

While that's as may be, I think we both know that neither SDOT nor WSDOT are really that interested in creating new high capacity routes within city limits. Minor changes here and there, sure. But make no mistake: if this project were going through the design phase today, instead of 10 or 15 years ago, the surface street would probably win out.

The surface+transit option would've been good, but since 99 is used as a bypass of I-5 occasionally, this tunnel was needed for that traffic.

Highway 99 isn't typically used as a bypass for through-traffic, due to the time-consuming east-west connections at the north end to Aurora Avenue. It is useful to the south end, but that was mostly a side-benefit of having a few (but not too many) downtown exits.

There are no direct east-west routes from Aurora to the 5, but there are plenty of good-enough options for it to still be a feasible route to bypass Seattle to the West. I have used Aurora to bypass the city coming from the north, even though Waze was suggesting I stay on 5. Probably saved about 15 minutes?

I doubt the Port of Seattle would have supported the surface-only option anyways, and I seem to recall them having contributed to funding.

The surface+transit option would've been good, but since 99 is used as a bypass of I-5 occasionally, this tunnel was needed for that traffic.

Highway 99 isn't typically used as a bypass for through-traffic, due to the time-consuming east-west connections at the north end to Aurora Avenue. It is useful to the south end, but that was mostly a side-benefit of having a few (but not too many) downtown exits.

There are no direct east-west routes from Aurora to the 5, but there are plenty of good-enough options for it to still be a feasible route to bypass Seattle to the West. I have used Aurora to bypass the city coming from the north, even though Waze was suggesting I stay on 5. Probably saved about 15 minutes?

I doubt the Port of Seattle would have supported the surface-only option anyways, and I seem to recall them having contributed to funding.

Why would the surface and transit option have been better if thatís what there building anyways on top of this tunnel? The only difference is that option wouldnít havenít included a freeway tunnel?

Reduced cost, smaller time frame, more consistent with city policy.

Iíll be interested in seeing the traffic counts. To get better infrastructure you have to pay for it and sometimes it takes longer to build. Whatís faster and cheaper isnít always better.

I would expect the ramps to and from Alaskan way to be quite busy, as it will be the new access route to Western. Although it's possible that Western-bound traffic will go through the tunnel all the way to Mercer, and then turn around.

While you have to pay to get better infrastructure, there is a lot of things that come with that infrastructure that might not be worth the cost. Lengthened construction time frames, misplaced residents, traffic flow changes, etc. And it's possible that it might not be worth it at all, and that's for the cost-benefit analysis to decide. In the case of the tunnel, it fell in its favor. You could conceivably extend any freeway, and see traffic flow improvements, but it's not always worth it, if you're misplacing thousands of people, or it takes way too long to build.

While Iíve yet to witness Washington first hand, from what Iíve seen they have a pretty good infrastructure network. I mean the traffic in Seattle is bad but pretty much every major city is like that. The roads seem to be in good condition and are quite impressive in some regards.

While Iíve yet to witness Washington first hand, from what Iíve seen they have a pretty good infrastructure network. I mean the traffic in Seattle is bad but pretty much every major city is like that. The roads seem to be in good condition and are quite impressive in some regards.

Connections are good but narrow. Six lane roads are unusual, unlike many other cities where they seem to be common. The big issues are the lakes and hills, which make it difficult to navigate in a direct manner, and make it very expensive to build and widen roads.

sounds like aside the cost, this was a great project, you get to keep a highway and have an ugly one removed and allow access to the waterfront. If tunnels weren't so expensive, this would happen in many downtowns.

It really doesn't replace the bulk of the viaduct's traffic (due to the lack of downtown ramps) and really wasn't worth the headache. The Surface + Transit option from the 2000s would have been much better, and we're essentially building it on top of the tunnel anyway (but at a higher cost and much later).

Fingers crossed that a major earthquake (either from the subduction zone or local fault) doesn't strike the viaduct before it's fully demolished. It wouldn't take down the whole waterfront, thanks to the new seawall, but it would still do a lot of damage.

On the plus side, although it would kill many dozens of people, it would at least prove to the non-believers the viability of a tunnel through fill, and its ability to not only stand up in an earthquake, but also be one of the safest places.

The tunnel was far too deep for any downtown exits to be practical. Plus, the new tunnel includes far better access to Alaskan Way than the current Viaduct. Alaskan Way will basically be the new downtown connector.

Sort of like when I-71 was rebuilt through downtown Cincinnati, a confusing mass of street connector ramps were removed and replaced with a narrower footprint depressed freeway with the only connections between it and the streets being at the ends.

Aw, I was looking forward to the tunnel opening in October. Weeks of hearing nothing and now this. Not that it would affect me anyway, because I don't live in the area and wouldn't be driving here, but I wanted to see it done in a timely manner.

Aw, I was looking forward to the tunnel opening in October. Weeks of hearing nothing and now this. Not that it would affect me anyway, because I don't live in the area and wouldn't be driving here, but I wanted to see it done in a timely manner.

Aw, I was looking forward to the tunnel opening in October. Weeks of hearing nothing and now this. Not that it would affect me anyway, because I don't live in the area and wouldn't be driving here, but I wanted to see it done in a timely manner.

Timely is a shipped that sailed long ago with this project!

Execute a bureaucrat and their family for each day of delay. Things will be sped up then for sure! Tolerate sloppiness and you will get sloppiness.

Rick

Logged

US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA. Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.